Citing what he termed Broadview 6 trial judge April Perry’s “vague but serious threats” to local prosecutors, a top U.S. Justice department official on Friday declined to cooperate with her investigation of alleged prosecutorial misconduct.
The government’s response to what it termed a “request” came after the two prosecutors on the case filed motions to withdraw on Friday, and the number three official in the U.S. Department of Justice, Stanley E. Woodward Jr., gave formal notice that he was taking over.
Oak Park Village Trustee Brian Shaw was one of six Chicago area political activists arrested and charged a year ago after being part of a protest at the ICE detention center in Broadview. Charges against the six were eventually dismissed.
Woodward requested notice of the concrete basis for the investigation Perry is initiating. That term references one of the eight rights explicitly stated in the 6th Amendment, i.e., that the accused must “… be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. …” as a protection against arbitrary fishing expeditions by the government.
Notice of concrete basis has since been determined to require that a target of a government investigation is given specific information about the factual and legal grounds for the inquiry against them.
Woodward also argued that Perry’s appointment of “another attorney” to investigate the allegations against local prosecutors should only be allowed if that appointed attorney is supervised by the U.S. Attorney General. Woodward also argued that under the rule she has cited, Perry does not have the authority to conduct fact-finding in the case “because any wrongdoing would have taken place outside the court’s observation.”
A hearing on the numerous motions filed is scheduled for Nov. 5 at 10:30 a.m. in Perry’s courtroom.
Woodward’s filing makes it clear that the government believes Perry’s inquiry into alleged misconduct could bring serious legal consequences to numerous prosecutors. He argued that individual Assistant U.S. Attorneys specifically and the government as a whole are “currently in the untenable position of being subject to possible sanctions for purported wrongdoing without sufficiently concrete or formal notice of the alleged misconduct prompting the court’s inquiry.”
Characterizing the judge’s phrasings as “vague but serious threats,” Woodward argued that Perry must sufficiently place the United States on notice of the concrete factual basis for the court’s investigation.
“To be clear, the United States does not read the Court’s Oct. 9 minute entry as a directive creating any obligation to produce any information,” Woodward said in his 12-page filing last Friday.
Woodward noted that at the Oct. 1 hearing before Judge Perry, she had said, “the questions presented could affect not only the individual law licenses of the AUSAs who have been implicated, but also the possibility of a criminal prosecution.”
Also referenced by the judge, Woodward noted, were “mistakes and inaccuracies,” and “all the things that went wrong here.” The judge, he noted, also raised the possibility that “someone at a high level in the Department of Justice did something wrong” and suggested “that people at a high level in the Department of Justice were involved in things that could constitute obstruction of justice.”
Woodward previously served as an assistant to President Donald Trump, and Counselor to Attorney General Pam Bondi. He was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as Associate Attorney General of the United States in October 2025.
He has been described as the DOJ’s “point man” on numerous contentious issues. The Tribune reports that before filing the brief in Northern Illinois District court Friday, Woodward was in a Washington, D.C. courtroom, arguing with a judge there over the Trump administration’s handling of tree removals at a Washington D.C. area golf course.
That judge, Ana Reyes, has ordered an inquiry into possible misconduct by the DOJ in their representations of Trump’s plans for the golf course to her.
In Chicago, following an in court hearing Oct. 1, Perry asked the government on Oct. 9 for evidence to aid her “in making findings of fact regarding potential sanctions or criminal contempt. …”
The judge said she was “request(ing)” that the government produce numerous documents by Oct. 30 for her to review “in camera” in her chambers. They include “all communications between Sept. 26, 2025 and March 30, 2026 from, to, or with anyone outside of the Northern District of Illinois U.S. Attorney’s Office (other than the local FBI investigators assigned to the case) regarding any investigatory or charging decisions for this case.”
Also requested was the October 14, 2025 email sent to U.S. Attorney Andrew Boutros attaching the Oct. 9, 2025 Grand Jury transcript, and “any replies to or forwards of that email.”
In the event any such communications were oral rather than written, Perry asked that the government disclose the people present for the communication, as well as the date, time, and length of the conversation, certification that there was no recording or transcription made of the communication, and any notes made later to memorialize the communications.
In a flurry of motion filings Friday, Woodward’s counsel Henrique Carneiro and Woodward filed their appearances before the court and notified Perry that they would appear in person Nov. 5. That same day AUSAs Nathaniel L. Whalen and Diane MacArthur entered motions informing Perry they were “no longer assigned to this case” and asking for permission to formally withdraw.
